SATDADHAR ROAD ASARGRASTHA SAMITI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against dismissal of SCA No.3973 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge on December 10, 1999.

(2.) Appellant was original petitioner No.1 . The case of the appellant was that petitioner No.1 was an Association formed for protecting interest of slum dwellers residing at Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad . The appellant was the convener of the said association. It was asserted by the appellant the appellant (Satadhar Road Asargrastha Samiti) was looking after well being of its members. There were about 135 members who were residing on 60' Satadhar Society Road in Survey No. 88/1 of final plot No. 454 of TPS No.27 of Amraiwadi. Since the road was to be widened, the members of the appellant association who claimed themselves to be tenants and lawful occupants of land, were asked to vacate the land on the ground that the land was required widening of road. The appellant replied to the Collector, Municipal Corporation and other authorities by filing representations that they were adversely affected by communal riots and with the help of the Government and Municipal Corporation, they had constructed their houses. It was also their case that they were not unauthorised encroachers and they could not be asked to vacate the houses occupied by them. It was,however, stated that they were prepared to vacate the premisses if they were given alternate land and breathing time. Since the authorities neither granterd time nor alternative site and forcefully attempted to evict them, the appellant association was constrained to approach this Court by filing the above petition.

(3.) When the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the occupants were staying on the land in question since decades and they could not be evicted without offering alternate site. It was also submitted that though a show was made that alternate site had been allotted to the occupants , the entry was merely a paper entry and no possession of land was given to adversely affected occupants. It was also submitted that extent of land must be ear-marked for each of the occupants and only thereafter action of eviction could be taken.